The new case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111, started in 2012, when the baker, Jack Phillips, an owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., refused to create a cake for the wedding reception of David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who were planning to marry in Massachusetts. The couple filed discrimination charges, and they won before a civil rights commission and in the courts.

Unlike other bakers, Phillips was not simply fined, but rather ordered to “re-educate” his bakery staff, agree to create “wedding” cakes for same-sex couples, and file quarterly reports in relation to his compliance.

Undeterred, Phillips took his case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the decision stands in direct violation of the First Amendment, which protects both freedom of speech and religion. To no one’s surprise, his attempt to exercise his rights has outraged the LGBTI lobby across the United States, and has sent the media into a frenzy. In fact, many popular news outlets intentionally reported the story inaccurately, all in order to paint Jack Philips as a bigot and religious extremist. In reality, this could not be further from the truth.

A person with only passing interest in this case might be led to believe that Phillips is fighting to hang a “No Gays Allowed” sign in his shop. In truth, he never “refused” to serve a gay couple. He didn’t even really refuse to sell them a wedding cake, which they could have bought without incident. Everything in his shop was available to gays and straights and anyone else who walked in his door. What Phillips did was refuse to use his skills to design and bake a unique cake and participate in a gay wedding. Phillips didn’t query anyone on his or her sexual orientation. It was the Colorado civil rights commission that took it upon itself to peer into Phillips’ soul, indict him, and destroy his business over a thought crime.

Now, the Supreme Court itself will feel the pressure of the LGBTI agenda, as they find themselves caught between upholding the Constitutional laws on which the United States was founded, and the “right” the Court invented just two years ago:

The Supreme Court’s decision, expected next year, will again take the justices into a heated battle in the culture wars. On one side are gay and lesbian couples who say they are entitled to equal treatment from businesses that choose to serve the general public. On the other are religious people and companies who say the government should not force them to choose between the requirements of their faiths and their livelihoods.

Since the Obergefell vs. Hodges ruling in 2015, the United States has increasing felt the pressure of the LGBTI community to not just accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, but comply with – and even celebrate – it. Targeted for litigation by the LGBTI lobby, companies and organisations whose owners hold to the one man, one woman definition of marriage, are being fined for practicing their religious freedom. Those who speak against the crippling gender identity politics are shouted down and dismissed from public discourse.

Now, the Supreme Court, the institution which is solely responsible for the redefinition of marriage, is witnessing the drastic consequences of its decision firsthand. Through its own fault, it must decide between upholding Constitutional law, or catering to an increasingly powerful and litigious minority.

As Voltaire once said, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.”

In the United States, the consequences of same-sex marriage are taking their toll. If Australia goes down the same path, we can be sure that we too will fall under the blatant dictatorship of identity politics.